English-for-general-academic- purposes (EGAP) writing instruction and transfer of learning * Mark Andrew James Arizona State University [email protected]/index.html

English-for-general-academic-English-for-general-academic-purposes (EGAP) writing instruction purposes (EGAP) writing instruction

and transfer of learning *and transfer of learning *

Mark Andrew JamesMark Andrew James

Arizona State UniversityArizona State University

[email protected]@asu.edu

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mjames6/index.htmlhttp://www.public.asu.edu/~mjames6/index.html

* This presentation describes a study published recently in the Journal of Second Language Writing (volume 19, Dec. 2010).

BackgroundBackground• Context:Context: English-for-general-academic-purposes writing (EGAP) English-for-general-academic-purposes writing (EGAP)

instruction.instruction.• Targeted learning outcomes (e.g., using a writing process, using

resources) and believed to be applicable across disciplines.

• This is common in North American university settings.

• Focus:Focus: Learning transfer. Learning transfer.• Transfer is a fundamental goal of all EAP instruction, and with EGAP

writing instruction, transfer is expected to be broad.

• L2 and L1 writing scholars question EGAP writing instruction from a transfer perspective (Hyland, 2002; Leki, 2003; Russell, 1995; Wardle, 2007, 2009).

• Empirical research has shed some light on this issue (e.g., Allen, 2008; James, 2008, 2009; Nelms & Dively, 2007; Spack, 1997), but the picture of how broadly learning transfers here remains unclear.

Research questionsResearch questions

Does learning transfer from EGAP writing instruction to Does learning transfer from EGAP writing instruction to other academic courses? If so, what transfers, and to other academic courses? If so, what transfers, and to where?where?

Research designResearch design

• Qualitative case study in 2007-2008 academic year.Qualitative case study in 2007-2008 academic year.

• Context: Context: One section of a 2-semester freshman EGAP One section of a 2-semester freshman EGAP writing course at a large, urban university in the US. writing course at a large, urban university in the US.

• Participants: Participants: 11 students (out of 19 in that section).11 students (out of 19 in that section).• 10 freshmen, 1 sophomore;

• average age 20;

• 6 male, 5 female;

• 5 different nationalities (most common South Korean [4 students]);

• 5 different majors (most common business [6 students])

Data collectionData collection

• Two sources of data:Two sources of data:• Interviews with students. Each student was interviewed 2 times in

the fall semester and most were also interviewed 2 times in the spring semester. Each interview involved the same set of questions, focusing on whether the student tried to use anything learned or practiced in the EGAP course to do tasks in other courses.

• Writing samples. Students were asked to provide examples of any writing they did (e.g., lab reports, essays, work sheets for tutorials, short answers on tests/quizzes, messages on online class discussion boards, etc.) for graded tasks in any of their courses. I gathered a total of 54 writing samples (11 from the EGAP course, and 43 from other courses).

Data analysis: Data analysis: Step 1 – interview transcriptsStep 1 – interview transcripts

Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported. the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported.

Example unit of analysisExample unit of analysis

Researcher: When you wrote that [brief explanation after a calculation in your Researcher: When you wrote that [brief explanation after a calculation in your math homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]?math homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]?

Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, ‘‘nevertheless.’’ Yes.Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, ‘‘nevertheless.’’ Yes.

Researcher: Really?Researcher: Really?

Participant: It’s like a transition word. Like that.Participant: It’s like a transition word. Like that.

Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP course]?course]?

Participant: Yes.Participant: Yes.

(Participant 1, interview 1)(Participant 1, interview 1)

Data analysis: Data analysis: Step 1 – interview transcriptsStep 1 – interview transcripts

Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported. the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported.

Example unit of analysisExample unit of analysis

Researcher: When you wrote that [brief Researcher: When you wrote that [brief explanation after a calculation explanation after a calculation in your in your math math homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]?homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]?

Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, ‘‘‘‘nevertheless.’’ nevertheless.’’ Yes.Yes.

Researcher: Really?Researcher: Really?

Participant: It’s like Participant: It’s like a transition worda transition word. Like that.. Like that.

Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP course]?course]?

Participant: Yes.Participant: Yes.


Discipline: “Natural sciences”

Task type:“Explanation of calculation”

Kind of transfer:“Establishing coherence”

Data analysis: Data analysis: Step 2 – writing samplesStep 2 – writing samples

Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether each of 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the each of 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the EGAP course textbook had been applied. EGAP course textbook had been applied.


Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether each of each of 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the EGAP course textbook EGAP course textbook had been applied.had been applied.

1. describing visually1. describing visually 2. stating personal significance2. stating personal significance

3. narrating3. narrating 4. using similes/metaphors4. using similes/metaphors

5. framing5. framing 6. using temporal transitions6. using temporal transitions

7. using short sentences to 7. using short sentences to 8. avoiding missing commas8. avoiding missing commas

draw reader’s attentiondraw reader’s attention after introductory elements after introductory elements

9. avoiding fused sentences 9. avoiding fused sentences 10. using past perfect verb10. using past perfect verb

tense accuratelytense accurately



... ... Indicator of transfer in writing samples: Indicator of transfer in writing samples: a student’s a student’s application of a given learning outcome (a) in the writing application of a given learning outcome (a) in the writing sample from the first major task in the EGAP course sample from the first major task in the EGAP course andand (b) in a writing sample from a subsequent task in another (b) in a writing sample from a subsequent task in another course. course.

Data analysis: ReliabilityData analysis: Reliability

Another researcher recoded 20% of the data (7 interview Another researcher recoded 20% of the data (7 interview transcripts and 13 writing samples). Comparison of the transcripts and 13 writing samples). Comparison of the other researcher’s coding decisions with the coding other researcher’s coding decisions with the coding decisions I had made with the same data resulted in decisions I had made with the same data resulted in intercoder reliability values of 93% intercoder reliability values of 93% (interview transcripts) (interview transcripts) and and 96%96% (writing samples). (writing samples).

FindingsFindings

Research questions: Research questions: Did learning transfer from this Did learning transfer from this EGAP writing course to other academic courses? If so, EGAP writing course to other academic courses? If so, what transferred, and to where? what transferred, and to where?

Findings from interview transcriptsFindings from interview transcripts

Students reported 8 different kinds of transfer:Students reported 8 different kinds of transfer:

1. 1. Organizing Organizing (8 students, 15 tasks)(8 students, 15 tasks)

2. 2. Using resources Using resources (5 students, 8 tasks)(5 students, 8 tasks)

3. 3. Developing topics Developing topics (4 students, 5 tasks)(4 students, 5 tasks)

4. 4. Establishing coherence Establishing coherence (3 students, 4 tasks)(3 students, 4 tasks)

5. 5. Using appropriate syntactic patterns and devicesUsing appropriate syntactic patterns and devices (3 students, 4 (3 students, 4 tasks)tasks)

6. 6. Using a process Using a process (2 students, 5 tasks)(2 students, 5 tasks)

7. 7. Writing efficiently Writing efficiently (2 students, 3 tasks)(2 students, 3 tasks)

8. 8. Using appropriate vocabulary Using appropriate vocabulary (1 students, 1 task)(1 students, 1 task)


Example of reported transfer in the category Example of reported transfer in the category organizing organizing ......

Researcher: Why not think about [the EGAP course] when you did this Researcher: Why not think about [the EGAP course] when you did this task and the other task?task and the other task?

Participant: Participant: Why not? Maybe, I don’t know, but one thing, Why not? Maybe, I don’t know, but one thing, thethe introduction and the main point and a conclusion thingintroduction and the main point and a conclusion thing, I , I used what I learned.used what I learned.

Researcher: Did you consciously, you thought ‘‘I should use an Researcher: Did you consciously, you thought ‘‘I should use an introduction, body, conclusion’’?introduction, body, conclusion’’?

Participant: Participant: Yes, yes.Yes, yes.

Researcher: When you thought about the structure, and introduction, Researcher: When you thought about the structure, and introduction, body, conclusion, did you think about [the EGAP course] body, conclusion, did you think about [the EGAP course] or did you think about learning back in Japan?or did you think about learning back in Japan?

Participant: Participant: [The EGAP course].[The EGAP course].



Findings from writing samples: Findings from writing samples: Transfer across Transfer across learning outcomeslearning outcomes

Findings from writing samples:Findings from writing samples:Transfer across Transfer across disciplinesdisciplines

Findings from writing samples:Findings from writing samples:Transfer across Transfer across task typestask types

SummarySummary• Learning in the EGAP writing course did transfer to other Learning in the EGAP writing course did transfer to other

courses. courses. • This transfer involved a variety of learning outcomes, helping add

detail to our picture of transfer in EGAP writing education.

• This transfer occurred across a broad range of task types and disciplines, helping add support to the position that EGAP instruction can lead to broad transfer.

• This transfer was inconsistent, raising practical questions about the success of this EGAP writing instruction.

• Future research on this topic would be worthwhile. Future research on this topic would be worthwhile. • What factors at times inhibit transfer in EGAP writing instruction?

• Can EGAP writing be taught in a way that leads to more consistent transfer?

ReferencesReferences• Allen, G. (2008). Language, power, and consciousness: A writing experiment at the University of Toronto. In T.R. Allen, G. (2008). Language, power, and consciousness: A writing experiment at the University of Toronto. In T.R.

Johnson (Ed.), Johnson (Ed.), Teaching composition: Background readings Teaching composition: Background readings (3(3rdrd ed). Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s. ed). Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s.

• Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395., 385-395.

• James, M.A. (2008). The influence of perceptions of task similarity/difference on learning transfer in second language James, M.A. (2008). The influence of perceptions of task similarity/difference on learning transfer in second language writing. writing. Written Communication, 25Written Communication, 25, 76-103., 76-103.

• James, M.A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? James, M.A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 , 69-84., 69-84.

• Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication, 20Written Communication, 20, 81-98., 81-98.

• Nelms, G., & Dively, R.L. (2007). Perceived roadblocks to transferring knowledge from first-year composition to Nelms, G., & Dively, R.L. (2007). Perceived roadblocks to transferring knowledge from first-year composition to writing intensive major courses: A pilot studywriting intensive major courses: A pilot study . Writing Program Administration, 31. Writing Program Administration, 31, 214-240. , 214-240.

• Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, Written Communication, 1414, 3-62., 3-62.

• Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Writing Program Writing Program Administration, 31Administration, 31, 65-85., 65-85.

• Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60College Composition and Communication, 60 , 765-789., 765-789.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mjames6/index.html

Documents

English-for-general-academic- purposes (EGAP) writing instruction and transfer of learning * Mark Andrew James Arizona State University [email protected]/index.html